One of the great gifts Senator Barry Goldwater gave the Republican Party was a restoration of the limited government movement. His foreign policy views on containing the Soviet Union, as appropriate as they were for the time, opened the door for the neoconservative influence within the Republican Party.
President Reagan, as strong a President as he was, couldn't achieve many of the reduction cuts he envisioned because of the neoconservatives in his Adminsitration. Without a full-blown essay contrastting the original conservative school vs the neoconservative school, let me point out that neoconservatives don't share our views on the inherent danger of a growing federal government. Neoconservatives are compromisers when it comes to the welfare and security state--they believe that a growing government is acceptable if you "just get the right guys to lead us"
Today, I hope to explain why original conservatives blanch when neoconservatives make those compromises for the security state and demonstrate how its creeping influence is turning against our conservative principles.
Case in Point: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA).
The NDAA did violence to the Constitution. I understand the concept of, in times of war, liberties may have to be traded for security and, if the right people are in charge, we have nothing to worry about. What original conservatives recognize is that laws are very hard to undo and regime change is inevitable.
The NDAA suspended habeas corpus. It's domestic terrorist provisions allow for an American citizen to be detained indefinitely, without an executed warrant signed by an independent judge. This is no problem is the "right people" are in office but, as original conservatives recognize, Man is fallible. Power, in the hands of Men, corrupts.
Look at the case of Nancy Genovese. Genovese was detained, had her charges ginned up to domestic terrorism (because the police discovered an unloaded rifle in her trunk during an illegal search), was denied counsel, and arraigned with excessive bail. She was further drugged and mishandled, and had a large amount of cash stolen from her.
What was her crime? She took a picture of a military helocioper for her tea party group's "Support Our Troops" website. Now you might wonder (a) why did she have a rifle and (b) what was she doing with all of that cash? My answer to both of those questions are: because she can.
The point is that the NDAA denies Americans their basic rights. Terrorism charges can be brought based upn a preponderance of evidence rather than discovery of the facts as they are. nancy Genovese is "one of the good guys" and yet, the cops and FBI took great delight in calling her a teabagger.
And I don't think the cops are the bad guys here either. The laws are such that it rewards them to be overly suspicious, punishes them if they make routine judgement calls during police work, and encourages them to escalate each situation rather than to assess threats.
This is where original conservatives depart from the pervasive neoconservative wing (now a majority in the Republican Party). We think our Constitution matters. We think you do muchmore harm than good when you compromise the principles of individual liberties for security. We recognized that no government can ever make you completely economically secure or completely safe. The federal governments job is FIRST to secure our natural rights and that should never be compromised for economic security or the notion of physical safety.
Yesterday, a federal judge blocked the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA which is a victory for Liberty. But the case wasn't inititated by elected officials, looking to defend the Constitution. The case was brought by patriot activists, compelled to take legal action against the government for the violence the elected officials did to our Constitution.
Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) is leading the legislative fight against this bad law. He joined with Adam Smith (D-WA) to propose an amendment to NDAA which forbids the indefinitie detention provision. Prior to this court ruling, I had little hope it might pass. Today, since public opnion with undoubtedly be swayed by the judge's decision, these Congressman will find it to be politically profitable to support the amendment.
Our Republican Congress overwhelmingly votes for these laws (PATRIOT Act, CISPA, NDAA) not because the threat is pervasive but because they risk vilification if something bad were to happen within our borders. There is an incentive, in Congressional culture , and most alarmingly within the Republican Party culture, to "play it safe" and destroy liberty for what the State believes is security.
Thats not security, it's a cop out. If our individual liberties are trampled upon, America is no more...and the terrorists will have won. Our opportunity to be the party of prudence and reason is incredible; we just need a few good Republicans to lead the way.
I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept
Posted by: replica watches | 12/04/2012 at 06:41 AM